What it really matters, however, is to fix perpetual goals that they demand of us to win challenges spirituals, since our real fight is not against meat and blood, but against celestial powers (Ef 6:12). The field of our challenges spirituals is delimited by four main elements: The world (I Jo 5:4); The sin (Rm 6:14) the devil (Tg 4:7); I (TM 16:24). Many people think not to be fit in the warning of Pablo on the weak sick people and that them they sleep (I Color 11:30), and that they are in excellent condition, taking care of to the perpetual goals to grow (Pv 4:18), to have the sufficient for its life (Pv 30:8) and to be exempt of ‘ ‘ aborrecimentos’ ‘ , a time that to walk with God does not add pains (Pv 10:22). She is necessary, however, care with ‘ ‘ lethargy espiritual’ ‘ that it affirms: ‘ ‘ After all, I am in the blessing, what I want more? ‘ ‘ Two questions could be made in this substance: Which is the will of God? Reply: To how they know It all and they are safe! (I Tm 2:4)? Which is the will of God for its life? Reply: That you win the challenges in such way that the multitude of witnesses surround who it sees its victory and believes in its God, as happened with Elias. (witnesses: Hb 12:1; they see the good workmanships: TM 5:16; Elias and Baal: I Kings 18:22 – 46). In the truth, situations do not exist ‘ ‘ mornas’ ‘ (AP 3:14 – 22) ahead of God, or if it wins the challenge, and this blesses in them and makes to grow in God, or leaves the side challenges and we risk in them to enter in the dangerous way of ‘ ‘ magnificent of vida’ ‘ (I Jo 2:16), therefore ‘ ‘ our rest is not aqui’ ‘ (Miq 2:10).

This fact motivated variations throughout the history of disciplines and its concepts. The anthropologists had turned themselves, from the proper results of the research in these peoples with ' ' cultures diferenciadas' ' , for sub-groups or sub-cultures in the interior of the societies ' ' complexas' ' (VERANI, 2011) anthropology, therefore if places the question of the identity what it is I specify of a culture in search of the elements that become it different of the too much societies with which if relate or on the interference and interaction between the social groups. The starting point is the constatao of the differences. However, if it cannot say that the fond point of either the identity, therefore what it identifies something, or a social group, can not be, accurately, its difference, but the constatao of that does not exist pure societies, therefore all is, of some form, connected with other societies. in this interconnection takes advantage the processes of interaction.

I and the other Who are I? This investigation can be the starting point for who intends to answer to the registration of the Vestibule of Delfos, which would have stimulated the socrtica philosophy (' ' mesmo&#039 knows you it you; '). For any ' ' eu' ' if to know must leave of the investigation on its identity. The question can be ece of fish of the following form: It becomes what me ' ' eu' ' , differentiating me of ' ' outros' '? It is not treated to plagiarize the bible, but and first reply to this investigation it can be the affirmation of that I am what I am. But for ' ' to be what sou' ' , first I have that to know that I am not another one. Being what I am I can add the affirmation of Ortega y Gasset: ' ' I am I and mine circunstncias' '.

Here &#039 fits; ' entender' ' what the other thought (of the best possible form) for then only placing its positioning. It would be more or less the following one: let us imagine somebody that affirms that fish brain is good. If you find that this is a nonsense, or even though its religion not it allows to prove such thing, or by means of a colleague it knows that this is horrible, then will be able to say: you are wild? Or then ' ' I not concordo' ' end point. I would ask: he had some construction in this type of opinion? Not, for the opposite, you he finishes to close the chance to construct and to investigate an idea. this if must to the fact of that the interlocutor was not worried, before affirming or denying something, what the other wanted to say.

The interlocutor did not have the constructive one and necessary patience TO ENTER IN the LOGICAL THOUGHT of who affirmed that ' ' fish brain would be bom' '. To this lack of inquiry I called of FALSE CRITICAL SENSE. Then, what it would be a TRUE CRITICAL SENSE? That positioning that serves as a construction form what the other thought and analyzed; it is a commentary that more strengthens of what diverge, and this comes for the spirit to place new ideas, but that they are justified by concrete arguments. He is scientific, therefore, to suggest new possibilities for cause ' ' of this ' ' or ' ' of that ' ' , but this is fruit of an inquiry! Now, it would not be scientific commentaries as ' ' each one has its opinion and pronto' '. This work, therefore, is a small beginning of the scientific activities that we believe to be part interdisciplinadamente in the life of each one of us daqui for front, without being dominated for the media or other forms of manipulation that makes in them to be apticos.